The court established that the naval authorities cannot sit in judgment over the constitutionality of the law and that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 226.

JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J.:---Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner is a sailor in the Indian Navy holding the rank of Engine Room Apprentice III (E.R.A. III). The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Navy as an Artificer Apprentice from 6-1-1990. He was engaged for a period of 20 years. The petitioner alongwith other three applicants filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court being Civil Writ Petition No. 6470 of 1999 inter alia challenging the provisions of section 11(2) of the Navy Act, 1957 and Regulation No. 269(1-A) of the Navy Service Regulations, 1965 as being unconstitutional on the ground that they violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the petitioner in the said writ petition was that the petitioner was discriminated against by being compelled to engage for a period of 20 years instead of 15 years like the other sailors. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 15-2-2000 holding that the period of 20 years was being applied to all categories of sailors in pursuance of the provisions of Navy Act and the Navy Service Regulations and consequently, the petitioner could not have any grievance, since there was no arbitrariness in the application of the provisions of section 11 as well as Regulations.

3. On 13-10-2000 the Chief Staff Officer (LA P) Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam, respondent No. 3 issued an administrative order to commanding officer INS Rana, respondent No. 4 where the petitioner was posted to take action against the petitioner for filing writ petition in the Delhi High Court. The respondent No. 3 stated that the petitioner had violated the Rules and Regulations of the Navy by approaching the Court without exhausting the remedies available under section 23 of the Navy Act and Regulations 235 to 239 of the Reg Navy Part II (Statutory). Therefore the respondent No. 3 directed respondent No. 4 to bring the petitioner to a summary trial for violating the channels of redressal of grievances. On 17-3-2001 the petitioner was summoned by respondent No. 4 and was informed that he had been awarded warrant punishment No. 1 of 2001 i.e. removal of two good conduct badges for having filed the said writ petition in the Delhi High Court without exhausting the remedies available under section 23 of the Navy Act and Regulations 235 to 239 of the Regs Navy Part II (Statutory). According to the petitioner no opportunity was given to him to furnish any explanation and he was simply informed that it had been recorded that he had pleaded guilty to the charges. The petitioner has contended that he never pleaded guilty of any such charges as there was no question of doing so. Some of these facts were recorded by the petitioner by his letter dated 28-3-2001 to the respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner sought redressal of his grievance. As no action was taken by the respondent No. 4 the petitioner filed the present petition seeking to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17-3-2001 awarding punishment of removal two good conduct badges of the petitioner.

4. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that every citizen of India has a right to approach the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of seeking redressal of his grievance. If a citizen approaches a Court it can never amount to misconduct on his part. He submitted that it is now well settled that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that being so the right of a person to approach a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can never be taken away or curtailed in any manner. The learned Counsel then submitted that invocation of provision of section 23 of the Navy Act and Regulations 235 to 239 of the Regs Navy Act Part II (Statutory) was completely misconceived. He submitted that section 23 of the Navy Act and Regulations 235 to 239 of the Regs Na

Click Here to Read the rest of this document